Bible Fallacies

[Donkey1499]

And that presence was the God of Christianity and not any other religion why? Is it because you went to Christianity and not another religion? I can quote scripture too:

Sura 40:10 Lo! (on that day) those who disbelieve are informed by proclamation: Verily Allah's abhorrence is more terrible than your abhorrence one of another, when ye were called unto the faith but did refuse.

Sura 3:85 And whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter.

Sura 4:60 Hast thou not seen those who pretend that they believe in that which is revealed unto thee and that which was revealed before thee, how they would go for judgment (in their disputes) to false deities when they have been ordered to abjure them ? Satan would mislead them far astray.

Sura 47:25 Lo! those who turn back after the guidance hath been manifested unto them, Satan hath seduced them, and He giveth them the rein.

Sura 47:32 Lo! those who disbelieve and turn from the way of Allah and oppose the messenger after the guidance hath been manifested unto them, they hurt Allah not a j ot, and He will make their actions fruitless.

So in the end you have no proof.

Here's where many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, etc. get confused. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all about the same God. The God of Abraham. The Holy Trinity (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is a representation of this. Judaism = The Father (It came first); Christianity = The Son (relies soely on the teachings of Jesus, the Son of God); Islam = The Holy Spirit (The spirit [maybe Abraham or Muhammed or God himself] which the Muslims follow mostly, God as the spirit or the spiritual place their in when they die [heaven or whatever]).

(Bear with me, I heard this in Bible class last year and stupidly didn't take notes)

But anyway, their connection is to Abraham. The one from Genesis I think.

 

[Donkey1499]

You mean OT law?

Yes. But I tend to follow Jesus' teachings. Like, Jesus even says that we should pay taxes if the leader demands it. "Pay to the emporer what belongs to the Emperor and pay to God what belongs to God." {I forget the verse} Jesus even says to carry a weapon when you go on trips (Luke 22:35-38).

 

[Binyamin]

Kal-El

Let me know when you have your 3, any 3.

 

[Columbusite]

Here's where many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, etc. get confused. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all about the same God. The God of Abraham. The Holy Trinity (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is a representation of this. Judaism = The Father (It came first); Christianity = The Son (relies soely on the teachings of Jesus, the Son of God); Islam = The Holy Spirit (The spirit [maybe Abraham or Muhammed or God himself] which the Muslims follow mostly, God as the spirit or the spiritual place their in when they die [heaven or whatever]).

(Bear with me, I heard this in Bible class last year and stupidly didn't take notes)

But anyway, their connection is to Abraham. The one from Genesis I think.

I see what you're saying. But they can't be the same God. The God of Judaism didn't send a messiah yet. The God of Christianity did send a messiah. The God of Islam sent the prophet Muhammed to correct the Torah and the Bible while the God of those respective religions never did such a thing. I think they share some of the same religious stories but I wouldn't go so far as to say they follow the same God.

 

[Columbusite]

Yes.

Yikes. Time to bring back stonings.

But I tend to follow Jesus' teachings. Like, Jesus even says that we should pay taxes if the leader demands it. "Pay to the emporer what belongs to the Emperor and pay to God what belongs to God." {I forget the verse} Jesus even says to carry a weapon when you go on trips (Luke 22:35-38).

I like Jesus better than OT God too.

 

[Donkey1499]

I see what you're saying. But they can't be the same God. The God of Judaism didn't send a messiah yet. The God of Christianity did send a messiah. The God of Islam sent the prophet Muhammed to correct the Torah and the Bible while the God of those respective religions never did such a thing. I think they share some of the same religious stories but I wouldn't go so far as to say they follow the same God.

Well, they do follow the same God, they just worship differently. Christians think they're the only ones who are right, jews are in denial, muslims think they're only the correct ones (hmmm sounds familiar). But the Torah, Quran, and Bible are pretty precise when talking about "THE GOD OF ABRAHAM".

 

[laska]

Wow, you have a severly skewed sense of perspective then.:lol:




So, why mention them at all? Remeber the first commandment carved into stone: You shall have no other gods before me- why the hell would he mention them? Isn't better to keep the people ignorant of other gods? If alls you were used to was watching Black and white television, and you found out that they made color tvs, it's only logical that you'd want to get a color one.

Using that logic why mention other gods at all in the commandment itself. Also, Israel was at the crossroads of the ancient world. The nation was very aware of the cultures surrounding them as they were in very close proximity and interacted with them in commerce and such. I think aspects of these different cultures were seductive to many of the Israelites and this is why Israel's prophets warned them of these other gods.

Here's some more:

. Is god all-powerful?
Yes
Jer 32:17

27

Mt 19:26

Mk 10:27

Lk 1:37

No
Jdg 1:19

Mk 6:5

Heb 6:18

Heb 6:18-My views on the nature of God is that God cannot sin or He would not be perfect and virtuous. This means God is bound by law or He would not be God. This may not fit your definition of all powerful but I have no problem with the use of this language in the translation as God has an infinite fullness of all divine attributes in perfection and even the elements freely obey his commands. None of this would be possible without obedience to true principles.



Judges 1:19-if you take the Book of Judges in context, when the Israelites were obedient to the commands of the Lord they overcame their enemies and when they were not faithful they failed. Later in Chapter 4 the Israelites were having problems with the chariots of iron and the Lord delivered their enemies into their hands. It is possible that the scribe that edited the history may have left out the reasons why the Lord did not deliver Judah in the particular verse given.

Mark 6:5- the following verse states that Jesus marveled at the unbelief of the people in his hometown of Capernaum. He could not do the mighty miracles like He did in other areas of Israel because of the lack of belief in this town. I think this relates to the purpose of this life being a test of faith and that maybe God has decided not to show miracles before faith.

 

[Donkey1499]

Yikes. Time to bring back stonings.




I like Jesus better than OT God too.

God sent Jesus as a way to make a new covenant with the people, even the Gentiles this time.

 

[Columbusite]

Well, they do follow the same God, they just worship differently. Christians think they're the only ones who are right, jews are in denial, muslims think they're only the correct ones (hmmm sounds familiar). But the Torah, Quran, and Bible are pretty precise when talking about "THE GOD OF ABRAHAM".

They worship differently because they worship different Gods. Unless you're talking about a triune God who sent 3 different scriptures just to mix things up a bit.

 

[HU-210]

Just had to say something about your sig. As someone with some knowledge of Arabic those letters are supposed to be connected except for the alif. Sorry but that was just bugging me.

Ah, thank you. I was in doubt about which spelling was accurate, and which not. I know little about arabic. My interests are more directed at islam. I will change it asap . Thanks.

Mr U

 

[laska]

Kal-el, in reviewing several of your posts on different threads most of the inconsistencies you come up with are easily explained. One example is the two verses regarding Joseph where it states in one that the Midianites had bought him from his brethren and the other verse that it was Ishmaelites. There is no problem here as Ishmaelites is a broader term that encompasses many tribes including the Midianites. Many little things like that.

The scriptures state that God does nothing but that is in the benefit of His children. The problem with your methodology is that you are fast to condemn and make fun of things in the Biblical text and do not take into consideration that maybe God understands a larger reality than you do. I think God completely understands what it takes to save the human family from eternal death and according to modern scripture His goal is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of the human family. Let me give an example of the way two different perspectives sees things. A kid born with a debilitating disease who dies at an early age. A mortal perspective may be how can God allow this to happen. If we could see through God's eyes maybe you see the great spiritual growth of His family members who develop greater compassion and love. You see the child and what he becomes in the eternities because of this trial, the greater patience and empathy he develops because of his sufferings on earth. A brief trial has enhanced his joy into the eternities. The thing that you would condemn based on a limited perspective turns out to be a great blessing.

 

[HU-210]

The thing that you would condemn based on a limited perspective turns out to be a great blessing.

Indeed. However, such a belief is esoteric, and Kal-El, in my experiences, seems to be unwilling to debate in such a manner, because he is unwilling to empathise with christian thought. The reasons for which I can only speculate about.

Mr U

 

[kal-el]

Using that logic why mention other gods at all in the commandment itself. Also, Israel was at the crossroads of the ancient world. The nation was very aware of the cultures surrounding them as they were in very close proximity and interacted with them in commerce and such. I think aspects of these different cultures were seductive to many of the Israelites and this is why Israel's prophets warned them of these other gods.

Yes, I see what your saying. But on the other hand, that is but 1 commandment, god(s) were mentioned in 19 verses. You think he's trying to relay a message here? this is why Israel's prophets warned them of these other gods- wow, god must think they're either stupid, or easily-swayed if he had to warn them not to worship other gods.

Heb 6:18-My views on the nature of God is that God cannot sin or He would not be perfect and virtuous. This means God is bound by law or He would not be God. This may not fit your definition of all powerful but I have no problem with the use of this language in the translation as God has an infinite fullness of all divine attributes in perfection and even the elements freely obey his commands. None of this would be possible without obedience to true principles.

My definition of all-powerful? No, not mine, I'm sure your's as well. All-powerful means he can do anything. Which he cleary can't. Let's say he's in a football stadium, right? (that right there shows he's not omnipresent, as he can't be in 1 place) Can he throw a football so high and fast that he cannot catch it? If so, there's something he can't do, if he can't he isn't perfect.

Judges 1:19-if you take the Book of Judges in context, when the Israelites were obedient to the commands of the Lord they overcame their enemies and when they were not faithful they failed. Later in Chapter 4 the Israelites were having problems with the chariots of iron and the Lord delivered their enemies into their hands. It is possible that the scribe that edited the history may have left out the reasons why the Lord did not deliver Judah in the particular verse given.

It is possible-if god were infallible, he would know this, hence he would have taken every precaution to make his actions and word translated correctly, right? Or, is he a bludering idiot? Nothing should be left to question, after all, he's perfect.

Mark 6:5- the following verse states that Jesus marveled at the unbelief of the people in his hometown of Capernaum. He could not do the mighty miracles like He did in other areas of Israel because of the lack of belief in this town. I think this relates to the purpose of this life being a test of faith and that maybe God has decided not to show miracles before faith.

Why couldn't he do any miracles there? It shouldn't matter whether the people in his hometown had faith or not. Why could he only heal a few sick people, and stop there? What, did he run out of magic tricks?

Kal-el, in reviewing several of your posts on different threads most of the inconsistencies you come up with are easily explained. One example is the two verses regarding Joseph where it states in one that the Midianites had bought him from his brethren and the other verse that it was Ishmaelites. There is no problem here as Ishmaelites is a broader term that encompasses many tribes including the Midianites. Many little things like that.

Well, if they're so easily explained, explain away all the inconsistencies of the Noah's ark myth I pointed out. Thus frar, no bible-thumper has explained that. They seem to be doding having to justify all the descrepencies I came up with. http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=158623&postcount=131

The scriptures state that God does nothing but that is in the benefit of His children. The problem with your methodology is that you are fast to condemn and make fun of things in the Biblical text and do not take into consideration that maybe God understands a larger reality than you do.

Well, if he does, he should have made his word more clear, so everyone could see the logic in it, instead of easily pointing out flaws.

I think God completely understands what it takes to save the human family from eternal death and according to modern scripture His goal is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of the human family. Let me give an example of the way two different perspectives sees things. A kid born with a debilitating disease who dies at an early age. A mortal perspective may be how can God allow this to happen. If we could see through God's eyes maybe you see the great spiritual growth of His family members who develop greater compassion and love. You see the child and what he becomes in the eternities because of this trial, the greater patience and empathy he develops because of his sufferings on earth. A brief trial has enhanced his joy into the eternities. The thing that you would condemn based on a limited perspective turns out to be a great blessing.

If he is so loving like you pretend, why would he create a "hell" in which people are eternally tormented with no hope of escape. Dosen't make him sound so loving.

 

[kal-el]

Kal-El

Let me know when you have your 3, any 3.

3.... what exactly? Verses, and your gonna attempt to justify their validity?

Ok, how about in Exodus 14:15-30 when god parted the Red sea so the Israelites could pass after leaving Egypt.

Exodus 16:24 Bread from heaven. Explain how the people ate while being in the desert for much of their trip.

Exodus 24:29-35 Moses glow. After Moses spent time with god on the mountains, it says his face glowed. I guess he had to cover it somehow so his people would not be distracted.

And please don't explain these verses in forms of divine mysteries, as that claim dosen't wash.

 

[teenonfire4him77]

(that right there shows he's not omnipresent, as he can't be in 1 place)

Ok this has been bugging me...do you know what omnipresent means? it means he is EVERYWHERE, he can be in this 1 place...and he can be in that other place....he is EVERYWHERE...its not that hard to understand really.

 

[kal-el]

Ok this has been bugging me...do you know what omnipresent means? it means he is EVERYWHERE, he can be in this 1 place...and he can be in that other place....he is EVERYWHERE...its not that hard to understand really.

Of course I do, it means being present everywhere at once. But that's impossible, how can you be in one place and another? Let me tell you something, hows about you give me several eyewitness accounts of god (the bible dosen't count), otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[teenonfire4him77]

Of course I do, it means being present everywhere at once. But that's impossible, how can you be in one place and another? Let me tell you something, hows about you give me several eyewitness accounts of god (the bible dosen't count), otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on.

Because he is God. He can do anything, he is beyond human understanding of space and time, and we have the concept so we can not simply muster how he can do it...but he can. Because in order for time and space to exsist...someone outside of it, had to have been there...to create it.

 

[kal-el]

Because he is God. He can do anything, he is beyond human understanding of space and time, and we have the concept so we can not simply muster how he can do it...but he can. Because in order for time and space to exsist...someone outside of it, had to have been there...to create it.

That's such a cop out. "He can do anything, becuse I say so, because a book said so" You seem to be failing to acknowledge a simple idea. The bible is the source of the claim that a god exists, so it can't be used as evidence to support itself. You and your fellow bible-thumpers' can fling this and that bible quotes till your blue in the face, that still dosen't prove that god is anymore than a character in a book.

 

[laska]

Indeed. However, such a belief is esoteric, and Kal-El, in my experiences, seems to be unwilling to debate in such a manner, because he is unwilling to empathise with christian thought. The reasons for which I can only speculate about.

Mr U

HU-210, I really enjoy your posts by the way. I have been totally shocked two times here on debate politics and that is after reading the profiles of Ether and now your profile and learning that you guys are eighteen years old. Wow, much respect.

kal-el, I am not going to attempt the Noah questions, not knowledgeable enough to answer them. I thought about attempting to respond to the rest of the questions but inorder to understand my perception on these it would require a clear grasp of an entire theology. Anyway, I guess this will be my last post in this discussion, its been fun, Laska.

 

[laska]

I have some time this morning and I guess I'll add a few thoughts on the Flood questions. One scenario is that it was a limited flood, the language that the waters covered all the earth and that every living creature was on the ark was from Noah's perspective. The dimensions of the boat given in the text could be incorrect and added later by an uninspired scribe. I know from your perspective Kal-el, God would not allow His scriptures to be corrupted but I have a different perspective on this. It seems to me that God has chosen to work with fallible man, respects free agency, and wants to keep this life as a test of faith(overwhelming evidence would undermine the test.) In my perspective the foreknowledge of God allowed for additional scriptures to be revealed to the prophet Joseph Smith inorder to counteract the corruption of the Biblical text.

Another scenario is that it was a global flood and the way God accomplished this is outside current human wisdom but would make sense if human knowledge was complete. According to the text, it seems the continents were still one land mass and Noah could have lived basically anywhere pre-flood. Everyone assumes it must have been in the Mesopotamia but this is where he arrived after the Flood. The area in which he lived could have had an abundant supply of wood. If I remember correctly the text gives somewhere around seventy to hundred years for Noah to build his ark. I don't think anywhere it states that he could not have hired additional labor. I have no idea the feasibility of a wooden ship that large but I am pretty confident a God that can design the human body can design a large wooden ship without it breaking apart. So basically I do not know if a global flood really took place, whether it is just a literary device to teach spiritual principles, or if it was a limited flood. The spiritual message is what seems important. I do not have a fullness of all knowledge(I can barely write my native language) and so I cannot make sweeping claims on what is and isn't possible.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I've got a Bible contradiction that I think is fairly unshakeable:

Examine Mark Chapter 10, verses 2-12:

And the Pharisees coming to him asked him: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 But he answering, saith to them: What did Moses command you? 4 Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away. 5 To whom Jesus answering, said: Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you that precept.

6 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. 8 And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing.

11 And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Note that Jesus is referring to Deuteronomy 24 with regard to the precept of Moses. But here's the rub: Jesus just said that another part of the Bible was written not by God, but by a man, expressly against the timeless law of God.

It seems to me to be pretty clear that if any part of the Bible is shown to be expressly against God's law, then any part of it could be and we wouldn't necessarily know.

Also (though not specifically a contradiction), see Corinthian 7:12, in which Paul claims to be writing; he mentions specifically that he's not relaying any message he got from God.

 

[Columbusite]

I've got a Bible contradiction that I think is fairly unshakeable:

Examine Mark Chapter 10, verses 2-12:



Note that Jesus is referring to Deuteronomy 24 with regard to the precept of Moses. But here's the rub: Jesus just said that another part of the Bible was written not by God, but by a man, expressly against the timeless law of God.

It seems to me to be pretty clear that if any part of the Bible is shown to be expressly against God's law, then any part of it could be and we wouldn't necessarily know.

Also (though not specifically a contradiction), see Corinthian 7:12, in which Paul claims to be writing; he mentions specifically that he's not relaying any message he got from God.

How about a person dying and then coming back to life 3 days later or a burning bush and a talking donkey? Of which none can possibly happen. Christians don't see the irony when they make fun of other religions for being so "out there". I've looked over the Book of Mormon and really didn't find anything more "out there" than what I found in the Bible. Both make ridiculous claims.

 

[kal-el]

I have some time this morning and I guess I'll add a few thoughts on the Flood questions. One scenario is that it was a limited flood, the language that the waters covered all the earth and that every living creature was on the ark was from Noah's perspective. The dimensions of the boat given in the text could be incorrect and added later by an uninspired scribe.

How can it be limited, it killed off every live entity?

Another scenario is that it was a global flood and the way God accomplished this is outside current human wisdom but would make sense if human knowledge was complete. According to the text, it seems the continents were still one land mass and Noah could have lived basically anywhere pre-flood. Everyone assumes it must have been in the Mesopotamia but this is where he arrived after the Flood.

I was under the impression that he lived on/around the eastern shores of the Mediterranean sea.

The area in which he lived could have had an abundant supply of wood. If I remember correctly the text gives somewhere around seventy to hundred years for Noah to build his ark. I don't think anywhere it states that he could not have hired additional labor.

Ooo, so he was an independent contracter also? Using your logic, he was pretty handy with the hammer too. If he hired labor, don't you think it would be common sense, that they would inquire on to what they're making. And given the nature of people then, if they knew "god" was sending a flood to destroy all living things, everyone would want to come aboard.

I have no idea the feasibility of a wooden ship that large but I am pretty confident a God that can design the human body can design a large wooden ship without it breaking apart. So basically I do not know if a global flood really took place, whether it is just a literary device to teach spiritual principles, or if it was a limited flood. The spiritual message is what seems important. I do not have a fullness of all knowledge(I can barely write my native language) and so I cannot make sweeping claims on what is and isn't possible.

Oh, I guess we're chalking it up to "omnipotent" powers, huh?

 

[laska]

How can it be limited, it killed off every live entity?

In a limited flood, it would have killed everything in the coverage area of the flood. From Noah's perspective all things on the earth had been destroyed.

I was under the impression that he lived on/around the eastern shores of the Mediterranean sea.

In Genesis the Euphrates was one of the rivers mentioned in the area of the garden of Eden. I think many people may assume this is the same river that is in Mesopotamia. Noah very well could have lived on the Mississippi river which may have been the Genesis' Euphrates, and when he arrived in or near Mesopotamia he or his descendants named the modern Euphrates after the ancient one.

Ooo, so he was an independent contracter also? Using your logic, he was pretty handy with the hammer too. If he hired labor, don't you think it would be common sense, that they would inquire on to what they're making. And given the nature of people then, if they knew "god" was sending a flood to destroy all living things, everyone would want to come aboard.

The LDS scriptural text teaches that the earth had become filled with violence at the time of Noah. Noah prophesied for many years pleading with the people to repent or the Flood would be sent. The people didn't believe him. If Noah did hire out some labor, I am sure they just took the money and thought he was just a superstitious, silly man.

Oh, I guess we're chalking it up to "omnipotent" powers, huh?

If omnipotent you mean to do the impossible then it is not the way I see this. It is my belief the miracles that are in the scriptures, the ones that are not just literary device to be interpreted symbolically, are only miracles because we do not understand all the laws that govern nature. Who is to say a thousand years from now any fourth grade chemistery student will be able to turn water into wine. If you lived in the ancient world, would you have stated it was impossible that one day a man would be sent to the moon, or have cell phones, and television? It was impossible then but the fact is that it has happened. I think it is poor methodology to state that these miracles are impossible.

 

[Columbusite]

Oh, I guess we're chalking it up to "omnipotent" powers, huh?

If omnipotent you mean to do the impossible then it is not the way I see this. It is my belief the miracles that are in the scriptures, the ones that are not just literary device to be interpreted symbolically, are only miracles because we do not understand all the laws that govern nature. Who is to say a thousand years from now any fourth grade chemistery student will be able to turn water into wine. If you lived in the ancient world, would you have stated it was impossible that one day a man would be sent to the moon, or have cell phones, and television? It was impossible then but the fact is that it has happened. I think it is poor methodology to state that these miracles are impossible.

I'm sorry, I just have to say something here. Turning water into wine is not so much a miracle as it is a parlor trick. Simultaneously having people of all cultures and languages have scripture revealed to them in their own languages all at the same time so that when Columbus sailed over to the new world they already had the Bible in their own language, now that would have been a miracle.